General Election 2024?

[TQR 13,354]

Best of luck @Charles De Gaulle, OMRLP candidate for New Forest East! 
 

[The Old Crem 3,307]

39 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

So both Swindon and Broxbourne will give a good indication on how good/bad the night will be for the Tories - That Conservative/Reform split could be the difference in winning or losing the seat

Will do. 
 

Some other seats that in 2019, 2017 or 2015  were in the first 30 being counted and to me should be interesting . 
Nuneaton - Lab 43% - Tory 33% - Reform 13%

Kettering - Lab 40% - Tory 33% - Reform 13% 

Workington and Whitehaven -: Lab 53% - Tory 25% - Reform 12%

Rutherglen - Labour 48% - SNP 31%

Darlington - Labour 47% - Tory 29% - Reform 12%

South Basildon and East Thurrock - Lab 38% - Tory 34% - Reform 19%

Peterborough - Labour 50% - Tory 25% - Reform 12%

Wrexham - Labour 43% - Tory 26% - Reform 11% - Plaid 9%

 

 

[Sly Ronnie 747]

9 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Blyth Valley has gone now. Ian Levy the winning Tory is running in the new notionally Labour seat of Cramlington and Killingworth which I expect will count quickly and on current polls should be a Labour hold for their candidate Emma Foody. Blyth town itself is now in the seat of Blyth and Ashington where Ian Lavery who held the now abolished Wansbeck for Labour by under 1k votes is running against Maureen Levy (Ian’s wife). Should be a fairly comfortable Labour hold this time. 
 

You Gov MRP has for these seats 

Cramlington and Killingworth -  Lab 54% - Tory 19% - Reform 14%
Blyth and Ashington - Lab 64% - Reform 15% - Tory 14%

Swindon North - Lab 43% - Tory 33% - Reform 12%

Broxbourne - Tory 37% - Lab 36% - Reform 15%

Rayleigh and Wickford - Tory 41% - Labour 28%- Reform 16%

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Blyth was trying to get in on the North East first declaration carve up in 2019 as I think it was one of the last to declare in 2017.

[The Old Crem 3,307]

Bloomberg saying the Tories are going to have a ban on mobile phones for Under 16’s in their manifesto. Wonder if Labour will have the same. It’s a bit hard through to say a 15 year old can’t have a mobile phone and 16 year old can vote through.. 

[Bibliogryphon 9,049]

3 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Will do. 
 

Some other seats that in 2019, 2017 or 2015  were in the first 30 being counted and to me should be interesting . 
Nuneaton

Kettering 

Workington and Whitehaven 

Rutherglen 

Darlington 

South Basildon and East Thurrock 

Peterborough 

Wrexham 

 

(Will update this post with You Gov data in a bit). 

 

 

 

Kettering is my constituency

 

Previously it has been an early morning declaration. Don't know why it was last time

 

I have seen some data suggesting that it is vulnerable

[The Old Crem 3,307]

31 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

Kettering is my constituency

 

Previously it has been an early morning declaration. Don't know why it was last time

 

I have seen some data suggesting that it is vulnerable

The swing in the Wellingborough by election is another reaosn.  

[Toast 15,362]

1 hour ago, The Old Crem said:

Bloomberg saying the Tories are going to have a ban on mobile phones for Under 16’s in their manifesto. Wonder if Labour will have the same. It’s a bit hard through to say a 15 year old can’t have a mobile phone and 16 year old can vote through.. 

 

Wasn't it just smartphones, not basic mobiles?

[The Old Crem 3,307]

Just now, Toast said:

 

Wasn't it just smartphones, not basic mobiles?

Basic mobiles are barely sold so it’s a de facto phone ban even if it’s not a full one  (The BBC quoted a few weeks ago about a campaign to produce more basic ones but they would logically include text facilities so wouldn’t remove the bullying risk entirely)? 

One flaw is the complete removal of public pay phones. Even 20 years ago you could find loads near every school but that’s not the case now. A lot more walks home from school now do not pass a public pay phone. 

[TQR 13,354]

Latest Redfield & Wilton:

 

 

Showing the Greens on 2 seats, which is more likely that some which say they'll gain in Bristol but lose in Brighton. Also has one seat for Reform, guess where.

 

More detail here, including interesting observations such as Labour now having a 9pt lead over the Tories among Over-65s.

[RoverAndOut 4,041]

Just watched the latest Conservative Party Election Broadcast. A few notes:

 

1. It wasn't a Party Election Broadcast for the Conservatives. It was a Party Attack Ad against Labour. A female voiceover explaining where Rishi's £2,094 tax bill lie came from - yes, that's right, they're still running with it. They're still claiming it is almost entirely officially costed by the Treasury (even though the Treasury have said it isn't).

2. At no point in the 3 minutes did the woman say the words "Vote Conservative on July 4th". Just popped up at the end with their latest three-pronged nonsense: Clear Plan/Bold Action/Secure Future with the only attribution being the BBC voiceover afterwards about it being a Party Election Broadcast.

3. It told us nothing of what the Conservatives are going to do. They are unbelievably desperate. This will do absolutely nothing for them in my eyes.

[Toast 15,362]

42 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Basic mobiles are barely sold so it’s a de facto phone ban even if it’s not a full one  (The BBC quoted a few weeks ago about a campaign to produce more basic ones but they would logically include text facilities so wouldn’t remove the bullying risk entirely)? 

One flaw is the complete removal of public pay phones. Even 20 years ago you could find loads near every school but that’s not the case now. A lot more walks home from school now do not pass a public pay phone. 

 

If there was a change in the law, more basic phones would be made available.

I don't know anything about bullying.

[TQR 13,354]

He’s admitting the Tories are shit for the country. He looks fucked. He’s ready for California.

 

[msc 18,019]

15 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

If there was a change in the law, more basic phones would be made available.

I don't know anything about bullying.

 

They've taken down the infrastructure for the basic phones in large parts of the country under the Tories. Would cost shitloads to re-do. 

 

Bullies gonna bully regardless. They didn't have smartphones or internet in the eighties yet still tracked down our neighbours son via the phone box and set fire to their dog. (I knew the dog years later, it survived and lived to be close to 20 human years old which is bloody ancient for a terrier. Just adding that bit in for those worried. No, I can't imagine harming any dog like that, let alone a lovely wee thing like that guy.)

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,393]

 

[The Old Crem 3,307]

58 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

If there was a change in the law, more basic phones would be made available.

I don't know anything about bullying.

Not if enough parents decide to break the law so it’s not financially viable to produce them (I’m not sure how it could be properly enforced in terms of parents not buying ones for their kids and registering it as their phone.)

[ladyfiona 2,240]

I saw some posts about basic mobile phones.

 

Basic phones need to be made available because those over 50/60 prefer it. I know because of working in NHS outpatients receptionist, where we are pressured to invite people to join an NHS app so people can access their appointments. It's rare but some people don't have a mobile phone (or email) and still use a landline.

 

But...you can't join NHS app if you don't have a smartphone.

[The Old Crem 3,307]

1 minute ago, ladyfiona said:

I saw some posts about basic mobile phones.

 

Basic phones need to be made available because those over 50/60 prefer it. I know because of working in NHS outpatients receptionist, where we are pressured to invite people to join an NHS app so people can access their appointments. It's rare but some people don't have a mobile phone (or email) and still use a landline.

 

But...you can't join NHS app if you don't have a smartphone.

That’s not a basic phone in terms of what government wants. That’s like the basic phone my parents used to have which still had internet access ans could hand about 3-5 apps being on it. The basic phone the govement wants seems to be one without internet access at all. 

[En Passant 3,191]

6 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Not if enough parents decide to break the law so it’s not financially viable. (I’m not sure how it could be properly enforced in terms of parents not buying ones for their kids and registering it as their phone.)

 

The companies don't have to as such, just make such facilities as the law denies unavailable via software locks then the legal onus is on the parent.

The makers won't care as they will cost the same and they make the same profit. The parents will pay the same as they do currently.

I'm no smartphone guru, but the cheap ones probably cost about the same to manufacture as a non-smart one anyway today.

If a non-smart one is still cheaper to make and the numbers were sufficient, they'd make them.

 

Whether all that is enforcible in practice is another matter. Over-stretched police hunting down teens with 'unlocked' phones and taking the time to prosecute the parents over them seems to me to just add to an existing problem of expending the limited resources in the wrong place.

[The Old Crem 3,307]

6 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

The companies don't have to as such, just make such facilities as the law denies unavailable via software locks then the legal onus is on the parent.

The makers won't care as they will cost the same and they make the same profit. The parents will pay the same as they do currently.

I'm no smartphone guru, but the cheap ones probably cost about the same to manufacture as a non-smart one anyway today.

If a non-smart one is still cheaper to make and the numbers were sufficient, they'd make them.

 

Whether all that is enforcible in practice is another matter. Over-stretched police hunting down teens with 'unlocked' phones and taking the time to prosecute the parents over them seems to me to just add to an existing problem of expending the limited resources in the wrong place.

It sounds like the Goverment wants phones without the ability to unlock anything. A widespread production of phones with the ability of the 1990’s. And school kids walking to school without a phone but without the phone box availability of the 1990’s. The government would actually get good headlines if they proposed re building phone boxes but I doubt they will suggest that. 

[En Passant 3,191]

1 minute ago, The Old Crem said:

It sounds like the Goverment wants phones without the ability to unlock anything.

 

Can you point me to a definitive source that that is the case? You know, a bit beyond 'it sounds like', I know I'm being nit-picky here but well, you have previous for not differentiating between, 'this is the case' and 'I think'.
 

5 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

A widespread production of phones with the ability of the 1990’s.

 

The above aside, and if indeed it is the case, where's the problem? There's enough of a market if all the kids currently with phones have to have them replaced - for companies to make them if legislated.

 

6 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

And school kids walking to school without a phone

 

I did, and there were no phone boxes on the route. (yes yes I know, 'back when I were a lad' and all that).

 

7 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

but without the phone box availability of the 1990’s.

 

Whatever else happens that's not coming back.

[Sleepiestpeep 124]

Enjoying this yougov screenshot today: 33% of conservative voters surveyed think that the conservatives are running the worst campaign so far.

...27% of them "don't know", which I rather suspect means they do know but don't want to admit it, and we drop another fifteen percentage points before they start naming another party as being worse. It's beautiful stuff.

[The Old Crem 3,307]

9 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Can you point me to a definitive source that that is the case? You know, a bit beyond 'it sounds like', I know I'm being nit-picky here but well, you have previous for not differentiating between, 'this is the case' and 'I think'.
 

 

The above aside, and if indeed it is the case, where's the problem? There's enough of a market if all the kids currently with phones have to have them replaced - for companies to make them if legislated.

 

 

I did, and there were no phone boxes on the route. (yes yes I know, 'back when I were a lad' and all that).

 

 

Whatever else happens that's not coming back.

They will be a demand by parents for phone boxes to come back or schools to provide phone access if school kids are ordered to walk to school without phones. 

[En Passant 3,191]

1 minute ago, The Old Crem said:

They will be a demand by parents for phone boxes to come back if school kids are ordered to walk to school without phones

 

Says who? You? Are these parents going to pay for them?

 

2 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Barijg in mind technically schools appear to have the power to enforce rules outside shcool premises if in uniofrm.  

 

Yeah right dump it on the teachers, they don't have anything better to do.

 

I knew it was a mistake engaging in a discussion with you, you're now typing so fast your spell checker can't keep up.

Mea Culpa.

@TQR Close, so close .

[The Old Crem 3,307]

Commercial TV will push back on a junk food advertising ban before 9pm

 

[The Old Crem 3,307]

2 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Says who? You? Are these parents going to pay for them?

 

 

Yeah right dump it on the teachers, they don't have anything better to do.

 

I knew it was a mistake engaging in a discussion with you, you're now typing so fast your spell checker can't keep up.

Mea Culpa.

@TQR Close, so close .

To be fair the Tories have had quite a recent history of expecting teachers to fill in the gaps in various policies. Adding a bit more to their workload is part of their philosophy. 
 

Also the Tories have recent history of being terrible with it policies - the Porn age ID stuff for example.